From nobody Fri Feb 23 16:16:20 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ThFW91Mw4z5B29q for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:16:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rodrigo@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.osorio.me (mvd.osorio.me [5.196.94.126]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ThFW84fKQz4Sd1 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:16:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rodrigo@FreeBSD.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=freebsd.org (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 5.196.94.126 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of rodrigo@FreeBSD.org) smtp.mailfrom=rodrigo@FreeBSD.org Received: from [192.168.75.199] (ns3309494.ip-5-135-160.eu [5.135.160.30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.osorio.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 951B42162E3 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:16:19 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------lh4By0xll04pT2Ymhmvkc283" Message-ID: <787339cd-48e4-49bf-b96e-77aab06cedd8@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:16:20 +0100 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Rodrigo Osorio Subject: Re: KSH Alignment To: ports@freebsd.org References: <20240223155440.16B282FF@slippy.cwsent.com> Content-Language: en-US, fr, es-AR Reply-To: rodrigo@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20240223155440.16B282FF@slippy.cwsent.com> X-Spamd-Bar: ++ X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.81 / 15.00]; VIOLATED_DIRECT_SPF(3.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.90)[-0.899]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.26)[-0.256]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.25)[0.254]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.10)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[freebsd.org : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[rodrigo]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16276, ipnet:5.196.0.0/16, country:FR]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DOM_EQ_FROM_DOM(0.00)[]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all]; REPLYTO_ADDR_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[rodrigo@FreeBSD.org] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4ThFW84fKQz4Sd1 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------lh4By0xll04pT2Ymhmvkc283 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 23/02/24 16:54, Cy Schubert wrote: > Hi, > > Would there be any interest in either replacing shells/pdksh with > shells/ksh as our default ksh dependency? Or Uses/ksh.mk to select a > default ksh for ports? > > The reason I ask is, shells/ksh has its lineage from the original AT&T ksh > (shells/ksh93) and is being actively developed (see shells/ksh-devel). > shells/ksh upstream is also the ksh imported into and used by CDE > (x11/cde*). > > My position is, I'd prefer a Uses/ksh.mk. If people are interested, I'm > willing to put this task on my todo list. > > Hi, As long as there is no compatibilities issues, having a well maintained ksh version makes a lot of sense. pdksh wasn't update for ages and afaik, has no active developer. As the shells/pdksh maintainer you have my blessing. Cheers -- rodrigo --------------lh4By0xll04pT2Ymhmvkc283 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 23/02/24 16:54, Cy Schubert wrote:
Hi,

Would there be any interest in either replacing shells/pdksh with 
shells/ksh as our default ksh dependency? Or Uses/ksh.mk to select a 
default ksh for ports?

The reason I ask is, shells/ksh has its lineage from the original AT&T ksh 
(shells/ksh93) and is being actively developed (see shells/ksh-devel). 
shells/ksh upstream is also the ksh imported into and used by CDE 
(x11/cde*).

My position is, I'd prefer a Uses/ksh.mk. If people are interested, I'm 
willing to put this task on my todo list.

Hi,
As long as there is no compatibilities issues, having a well
maintained ksh version makes a lot of sense.
pdksh wasn't update for ages and afaik, has no active developer.

As the shells/pdksh maintainer you have my blessing.

Cheers -- rodrigo

--------------lh4By0xll04pT2Ymhmvkc283--